About your Search

20121202
20121210
SHOW
Cavuto 15
Hannity 13
( more )
STATION
MSNBCW 86
CNNW 67
FBC 53
CSPAN 37
FOXNEWS 27
MSNBC 27
CNBC 25
CSPAN2 21
CNN 16
KPIX (CBS) 15
KQED (PBS) 15
CURRENT 14
KGO (ABC) 13
KQEH (PBS) 10
WUSA (CBS) 8
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 573
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 574 (some duplicates have been removed)
spending in order to reduce trillion dollar deficits and a national debt that is now mind-boggling league not -- monotonous. house minority leader disagrees vehemently with the speaker on how to reduce deficits and debt. today she offered a paradoxical statement on fiscal policy that would make both casey stiegel and yogi berra proud. the nation now just 24 days away from $600 billion of spending cuts and tax increases that will automatically kicked in. and pelosi has some wise words for washington. please listen terror. >> this is a moment of truth. the clock is ticking. christmas is coming. the goose is getting fat. in many homes across america it is very, very lean times. you cannot cut your way to deficit reduction. lou: that's right. pelosi says we cannot get our way to deficit reduction. listen to the top democrat in the house of representatives, the former speaker of the house unveiling -- on dealing with the fiscal crisis one more time. >> in many homes across america ad is a very, very lean time. you cannot cut your way to deficit reduction. lou: today said minority leader appear
deficits for as far as the eye can see. washington has got a spending problem, not a revenue problem. if the president doesn't agree with our proposal, i believe he's got an obligation to families and small businesses to offer a plan of his own, a plan that can pass both chambers of the congress. we're ready and eager to talk to the president about such a plan. >> you did speak with the president earlier this week. can you characterize that call? did he have any kind of count offer and we understand that he is making clear that it's got to be increase rates for the wealthy or no deal. are you willing to give a little bit? >> the phone call was pleasant but was more of the same. the conversations that the staff had yesterday were more of the same. it's time for the president if he's serious to come back to was a count offer. >> the jobs record indicated unemployment is down roughly a full point from this time last year. [inaudible] [inaudible] why take such a risk when the job numbers are improving. >> because increasing tax rates will hit many small businesses that produce 60 to 70%
. and then this party that paraded around as the big deficit hawks, the guys that wanted to control spending, the only cuts they put on the table is playing at margins, increasing retirement age from 65 to 67 and adjusting rates for social security. this hasn't presented itself as a party that wants to cut spending. on one hand you have president obama's proposal, which most agree is the responsible way of raising the debt, raising rates. and responsible cuts on entitlements and discretionary spending versus republicans who are divided against something that is a chicken hawk when it comes to the deficits, that is the boehner approach, or the more extremist position which is absolutely nothing.รง so this is an extraordinary position for the republican party to have evolved into. >> you must respond to what julian just said. >> i like julian an awful lot but i think what he said is entirely wrong. it's fascinating president obama last july, july of 2011, said we can get $1.2 trillion in revenue where we don't have to raise marginal tax rates and close loopholes and julian says most economists agree, i
months noctober and november... the deficit, almost $300 billion, $4.8 billion a day. they had $30 billion in revenue. but the spending is up 3 times that much, $87 billion. how do woe stop the out-of- control spending? how can we get the budget deficit under control? can we do that for our children and grandchildren? >> we don't cut back on medicare and social security benefits that impact middle-class and working families. we start with the rich. that's what the voters wanted. they don't want -- middle-class families like mine, they don't want to see their taxes go up $2200 after january 1. they want to keep the tax deductions that they have and allow for people who can afford it to pay down some of this debt and deficit-- >>> trey -- [overlapping dialogue] >> eric: how do we pay this down? >> eric, what you are hearing is very unfortunate because you asked a specific question about cutting spending, democrats will not talk about it. she won't talk about it right now. -- >>> that's not my question. how do we stop the spending? >> how we stop the spenning is to over the dlif and h
of the middle class -- catch up with my slides. there we go. the deficit and debt will improve as 34%. but the one thing they are certain is that taxes will increase. and in the next four years how it affected you think the federal government will be on each of the following issues. we read a list of these issues, we rotated those. this is how it basically stacks up. ensuring long-term future of entire programs such as social security and medicare, 65%. 64% creating jobs, 64% improving public education, growing the economy, creating a business environment that allows for innovation. lowering the federal deficit actually false down to 40. not as much confidence there as a part on the other side. we been said the training faces a number of challenges including but not limited to large budget deficits, national debt, slower economic recovery, high unemployment, deep political divide on many issues. do you believe we will overcome these challenges in the foreseeable future as we've done in the past, or do you think these are unique set of challenges that are so serious that we might not
would be good? >> we have an enormous deficit problem in the united states. nobody's dealt with it since bill clinton was president of the united states. there are a number of things we're going to have to do in order to meet our deficit. we're going to have to both raise taxes and cut spending. one of the areas we must cut spending is defense. there hasn't been serious cuts in defense in 30 years. the defense industry is well positioned. they have plants in something in over 300 districts. there's a lot of bipartisan defense spending. for example, the defense authorization bill that just passed yesterday in the senate gave the pentagon $17 billion more than they asked for. so to think that any industry or any taxpayer or any group of people who depend on government spending can be exempted from the serious problem that we have that's caused by this deficit is a mistake. everybody is going to have to pay for this. >> dawn, right or wrong, the defense industry has this reputation of being bloated, overcharging. are we at a point where we could afford to make cuts in defense spending to tr
for washington to face, they do talk about the deficit and the debt in getting the fiscal house in order. that is not the full extent of the list. but behind different as we talk about priorities along partisan and racial lines. let's start with where we are and with the public has been pounded with this message week after we, on the question of resolving the immediate fiscal cliff. how would you describe your temperature, your feeling that there will be some kind of accommodation and a deal even on the tax and spending and sequester side or both? >> good morning. glad to be with you and give you my perspective on where we are. to the beginning of your question, i often say one i am giving remarks that -- people in the same group, no matter how ponce and they are, people -- no matter how partis and they are, people will say two things. i want you to go to washington and stand on your principal. i want you to fight for us. i say, i will. someone else will get up and say, i want you to compromise and find the middle ground and get things done. this is the 10th time this just happen to me.
republican members of the house and the senate speak out on the need or a deficit approach that includes raising taxes on wealthy individuals and to moving right away to ensure that 98% of families do not race a tax increase. we need to look -- do not face a tax increase. we need to look at history. what we saw in the 1990s and 2000s, there was no relationship between lower marginal tax rates for the wealthiest among us an economic growth. first during the clinton administration, the top marginal tax rate was raised on the wealthiest individuals and the economy grew at its fastest rate in a generation. it added more than 22 million jobs. during the following eight years, the top marginal rate dax tax rate was lower, but economy never regained its strength from the reviews decade. middle-class families are vulnerable when the recession began at the end of 2007. i hope this hearing is helpful not just in this hearing, but across this country to people who are watching and waiting for congress to act. i will say more at the end about some of our members who are leaving. it is -- it has been
situation to be in. >> as the conversation shifts really to the bottom line in the deficit. at the end of the day the whole thing is about -- it's optical illusions and face saving for republicans. whether it's the notion they may not vote yes but just present, which is complete smoke and mirrors or the fundamental argument which is closing loopholes is not a tax increase. of course it is. at the core this is about asking americans to pay more americans to the federal government. this is just -- it's -- bill clinton called it kabuki theater. it's a way for republicans not to be ashamed and walk back the ideological core they've run on for the past few years. >> if president obama is able to come out and say i'm going to support getting rid of tax ducks for charitable organizations, hospitals, universities, religious organizations, i want to get rid of that tax deduction f he puts his finger -- his hand anywhere near that decision, he's going to be a loony toon every hospital, church, philanthropic in the united states, from the rockefeller down to the littlest catholic charity will fig
money, and then on everybody else. not so he can lower the debt or the deficit, but so he can spend to his heart's content. for months, the president has been saying that all he wanted to raise taxes on the top 2% so he can tackle the debt and the deficit. however, yesterday, he finally revealed that that is not really is true intent. by demanding the power to raise the debt limit whenever he wants, by as much as he wants, he showed what he is really after is assuming unprecedented power to spend taxpayer dollars without any limit at all. this is not about getting a handle on deficits or debt or him. it is about spending even more than he already has. why else would you demand the power to raise the debt limit on his own? by the way, why on earth would we consider giving a president who has brought us four years of trillion dollar unchecked deficits of 30 to borrow? he is the last person who should have borrowing power. the only way we will cut spending around here is by using the debate over the debt limit to do it. now the president wants to remove that to cut all together. of cou
the president called his deficit reduction commission to give the president and -- an idea what we could do to get our fiscal house in order. i want to show in you this chart, mr. speaker, it's the chronic deficits we have had in this country, goes back to 1970. all this red ink represents the inflation adjusted, 2012 dollars, comparing apples to apples across this chart, the deficit that is we have had in this country, and you see going back to 197 o 0, mr. speaker, which happens to be the year of my birth, we have run a deficit every single year from 199 . you remember 1998 we had newt gingrich leading the first republican u.s. house of representatives in modern times. bill clinton in the white house. they came together to solve some big problems. welfare reform, health insurance reform. folks forget about health insurance reform. we did away with pre-existing conditions. did away with all of the impediments in the large group markets, what they call the plans, had great success in that area, and finally got back into some positive territory. to be truthful, this assumes that all the fede
campaigned for re-election on the idea of a, quote, balanced approach, end quote, to deficit reduction, a mixture of tax increases and spending cuts. here's the plan that the republicans say you presented to them. >> i can tell you what i presented. it will be helpful. >> chris: let me -- >> it is our plan, let me do it. let me explain it. >> chris: i'd like to ask you about this part of it and you can tell me. >> okay. >> chris: $1.6 trillion in tax increases. more than $80 billion in new stimulus spending, next year, and, unspecified nonguaranteed spending cuts. question, is that your idea of balance. >> it is, let me explain what is in the explain they didn't report to you and explain, to people, which is, we propose alongside the trillion dollars in spending cuts we agreed with republicans, last year, on defense and a range of other government programs, proposed $600 billion of detailed reforms and savings, to our health care and other government programs, that is $600 billion. in fact, the health care savings in that plan, are larger than the plans we have seen republicans in the
to the labour party. they want to be in government and they claim they want to cut the deficit. what would they cut? what would they cut? if they object to the local government settlement and the object to the defense settlement and the objective the nhs budget and the object to the education budget, even though nhs schools are going up, and what exactly would they do? the problem is as was evident from the shadow chancellor's response, they didn't have anything to say on these matters but if they had a credible deficit plan then we would listen to the questions they ask us about the priorities of those plans. >> john stephenson. >> this cools and colleges of 270 million are extremely welcome. schools and colleges such as those in my constituency plans on the runway ready to take off, just in a little additional financial support. will the chancellor help those colleges and schools? >> i'm very happy to look personally at the case my honorable friend makes for his local education facility. these are of course other government departments but we have provided the money for education, for ne
, we are talking about deficit deduction. we are talking about raising revenue to a level in which can begin to support the kinds of investments we need to make to train our future work force and to create an environment in which we can care for the elderly. >> the think americans will remain optimistic but this did of the economy? if we have not tackle the things we have just talked about like the cost of education, the housing market? we are figuring out some philosophical issues about taxing and funding? >> i think the economy has been growing slowly and steadily all in the absence of any movement, which we have seen over the test of the last year. i have worked on guantanamo for the past 10 years. my sense is that if there is some movement until the positive direction, which have not seen out of washington and enter a long time, -- in a long time, at least we will not see head winds. we are making some progress. i see that continue. >> i want to come back to what todd said earlier. i am concerned about confidence being fragile. todd reference what happened until august of 2011. we
to make sure that the wealthiest in this country help pay down this large deficit. >> will the democrats just wait? >> we have a lot of discussions going on in the senate and the various places. we know what the parameters are and the speaker knows what the parameters are. the president is ready, willing, and able to sit down and seriously negotiate with us but they have to be willing to come to the table with specifics like he is doing. >> we have done something. if you look at either proposal, they want every tax rate to go up. we all agree that group of rates should not go up. we just disagree on the top 2%. let's go where we agree which would be the current rates and make sure the folks in the middle class don't have an increase. we all agree on that. but they want more and more. we are saying that you have to start somewhere. they don't want to use the procedure to allow their own people to vote on it. they are holding the american people, the middle-class hostage for small issues they want to fight on and play the press war. we agree on these rates to be lower. we just disagree on
this morning. you made a comment that you did not believe anybody was interested in solving this deficit problem. that about knocked me out of my chair. i need you to explain to me and the rest of the people watching why you said that anthony g. to -- and i need you to expound on that. i will take my answer off the air. please ask mr. reid to not to be such an obstructionist and sit down and listen. have a great day. guest: imitate a few days for that message out to get through from me. there's a lot of concern about budget deficits. in the period after the downturn, budget deficits for in a range of 10% of the entire gdp, the entire economic output of the u.s. they have come down a little bit. economists think to be sustainable, budget deficits have to be in the range of 3% of economic output or a lower. the focus of this effort to reduce deficits now is on getting them, in the federal budget deficit to the range of 3% or so. that is what i mean when i say policymakers are not trying to get rid of the budget deficits. given the economic weakness, a little bit of deficit spending is pro
, and he said that it is untanble to not cut them because they are driving the budget deficit, and, you know, the whole entitlement issues, the real core of the problem, the taxing issue, yes, the pyrotechnics, and its -- there's the struggle between the republican and democratic view, but all the numbers people know that it's the entitlement issue so if there's a fix, trajectory to make it somehow stable, that would be -- that's the relation. uh-oh, you have something from the book. >> your books are all ultimately about power, how it's used, squandered, built, and so the sub text of the events that you write about is how life works, how washington works. my favorite sentence in "the price of politics" is, "when you need friends, it's too late to make them." what have you learned about washington and life from the grand bargain? what is the hundred-year lesson from how that unraveled? >> well, you mean last year? what happened last year? well, that they found a way to postpone everything, and, again, they can postpone lots of the problems, but postponement is the theme. the cliche, "ki
of the tenure period the deficit to gdp ratio would be under 1%. succumbing you would solve the deficit problem. estimate under 1%? the percentage of your debt as the deficit to the gdp. the deficit to gdp. a deficit to gdp. now, we don't want to get there that we. the same way we don't want to go over the fiscal cliff. in other words, the fiscal cliff is a big austerity. we get $7 trillion in the deficit reduction over the last ten years. but you don't do it the way we want to do it. when it comes to the baseline, we have to work together as part of an agreement to get the right baseline but that doesn't mean it is not for real world deficit reduction. it is. does it mean that it's better than the current law? maybe not. but there is an agreement that in the fiscal cliff is not the best way. >> we could add the baseline. the deficit to gdp. >> you said the deficit. >> you look at the current line baseline and get under 1% of deficit to gdp. >> seven years and 7 trillion of debt reduction. if anybody wants to read more about, please look at that space on what it takes. i thank you all for being
, to deficit reduction. a mixture of tax increases and spending cuts. here's the plan that the republicans say you presented to them this week. >> i can tell you what i presented if it would be helpful. >> let me ask you. >> but it's our plan. why don't you let me do t why don't you let me explain it. >> well, i would like to ask you about this part of it and then anything i leave out you can tell me. 1.$6 trillion in tax increases, more than $80 billion in new stimulus spending next year, and an unspecified nonguaranteed spending cuts. question, is that your idea of balance? >> it is. let me explain what is in this plan that they didn't report to you and they didn't explain to people, which is we have proposed alongside the trillion dollars in spending cuts, we agreed with republicans last year on defense and other range ever programs, we proposed $600 billion of detailed reforms and savings to our healthcare and medicare programs. that's $600 billion. in fact, the healthcare savings in that plan are larger than the plans we've seen republicans in the past. >> is that what was in the budget?
to prosperity or to cut our way out of this deficit problem that we have. we're going to need more revenues. in order to do that, that starts with higher rates for the folks at the top. >> reporter: the president did say today he would consider lowering rates again for the top two percent next year as part of a broader tax overhaul. the house republican plan envisions $2.2 trillion in deficit reductions over the next decade. $800 billion would come from new revenues but with no hike in tax rates for top earners. instead the plan relies on $1.2 trillion in reduced spending including $600 billion from changes in medicare and medicaid. at the white house today, the president met with a bipartisan group of governors pressing his own plan for deficit reduction. that proposal, $1.6 trillion in revenue from tax increases on the wealthy and $600 billion in spending cuts mostly from reductions in medicare. he also wants authority to raise the debt ceiling without congressional intervention. but governors emerged afterwards treading a line between the two sides. delaware governor jack markel, a democ
the incentives. we do so much money that you can reduce the deficit significantly, lower the rate, still have the group you are asking to pay more, pay more if you're willing to broaden the base. the point i would make is that as difficult as it is, we should use this opportunity to think about what a most sensible tax system is, and one of the pieces we have made progress on, which will have real revenues as a budget deal, and that along with spending and economists is critically important. no matter how we raise or how much we raise the revenues, a small or big enough, we should strive to raise that in the most efficient way possible, and that is including tax reform as part of this overall deal is a critical part of growth. and shouldn't be lost in the mix. >> david, do you want to get in? >> i want to echo a number of the comments, because the way i describe it is if we had actually been trying to develop an incomprehensible, confusing, and globally uncompetitive system which could not have done -- system we could not have done a better job than what we got. there is a something to the pr
. [ screaming ] oh grover! electric deficit boogaloo. 29 minutes after the hour. right back on "the stephanie miller show." >> wow! i've never seen anything like this. >> when disaster strikes sometimes the only way out is to look within. current tv digs deep into the determination and escape. "trapped" experience the drama. back to back to back. >> hold on mates! >> catch the "trapped" mini-marathon saturday starting at 1 eastern. on current tv. rich, chewy caramel rolled up in smooth milk chocolate. don't forget about that payroll meeting. rolo.get your smooth on. also in minis. get irresistibly clean and fresh carpets in your home with resolve deep clean powder. the moist powder removes three times more dirt than vacuuming alone while neutralizing odors for a clean you can see, smell and really enjoy. don't just vacuum clean. resolve clean. [ singing christmas carols in background ] aunt sally's singing again. it's a tradition honey. [ singing christmas carols ] mmmm. [ female announcer ] make new traditions with pillsbury grands! cinnamon rolls. [ f
. tea party 2, the sequel. [ screaming ] oh grover! electric deficit boogaloo. 29 minutes after the hour. right back on "the stephanie miller show." alright, in 15 minutes we're going to do the young turks. i think the number one thing that viewers like about the young turks is that we're honest. they know that i'm not bs'ing them with some hidden agenda, actually supporting one party or the other. when the democrats are wrong, they know that i'm going to be the first one to call them out. they can question whether i'm right, but i think that the audience gets that this guy, to the best of his ability, is trying to look out for us. [ male announcer ] red lobster's crabfest ends soon. hurry in and try five succulent entrees like our tender snow crab paired with savory garlic shrimp. just $12.99. come into red lobster and sea food differently. and introducing 7 lunch choices for just $7.99. salads, sandwiches, and more. rich, chewy caramel rolled up in smooth milk chocolate. don't forget about that payroll meeting. rolo.get your smooth
to hearing today from the experts that we have before us today on how to reduce the deficit while protecting middle income families. as we enter the holiday season, americans should not have to face the uncertainty that many will face with regard to their taxes. there is no reason that middle income families should go into this holiday season without knowing whether their taxes will go up next year. last year, democrats and republicans work together to cut nearly $1 trillion of spending. now we need to continue that bi-partisan work to cut more spending, and to bring in additional revenues. if congress fails to reach an agreement under the budget control act of 2011, $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts will take place between 2013 and 2021. republicans and democrats agree that indiscriminate across-the- board cuts is not the right and to do at this time in our nation's history. if we trigger the automatic spending cuts and tax increases, gross margin bottom will fall by half a percentage point. we will reverse the hard-fought gains over the past few years. we cannot afford to go backwar
there will be a benefit, which means we do not have these deficits. in the fullness of time, whether a struggle last summer was worth it, if we have the spending cuts and deficits are lower, it might have higher economic growth in the long run because we went to that struggle last year. >> your position is that we should be ready to go through that struggle again and to call upon the national debt is necessary in order to enforce spending limits? >> that, of course, is not my position. we should never default on the national debt. the politics of debt reduction, which you on the better than me, are very difficult. i am not a political expert. if there is something we need to do that helps deficit reduction occur, i am not willing to stop process. >> you are saying defaulting of the national debt might be something we need to do now and then? >> no, sir. we do not default last summer. >> we did not. but we might in january of february. is it your position that we should be willing to default on the debt if that is necessary in order to force spending cuts? >> i would not be willing to default on the
the kinds of revenue from the wealthiest americans to help the economy grow and achieve deficit reduction and this puts us on a path towards a better economy. >> [inaudible question] what will he do at this moment? >> i would simply redirect that question to the republican leaders, who to this day, have not put forward any proposal on how they would achieve revenues and address the issue on the top 2%. there is no other way to do it, there is no other mathematically sound way to do it. making vague promises about achieving revenue through capping deductions were closing loopholes, it simply doesn't add up to a serious proposal. we haven't heard which deductions they would cap or which loopholes they were close. what is true is that other proposals that have been put forward include attempts to raise revenue only through closing loopholes and limited deductions can only achieve this if the middle class gets stuck with the bill. or if you have a proposal that is wildly limply unfeasible because it suggests that we would wipe out charitable deductions. it is simply impossible and getting som
will eventually get hurt by the accumulating deficit. we have too much deficit. we have to find a solution. we are forced to find a workable solution. they do not seem to have the incentive. they patched things up and come back and another sustainable solution. the more general problem is that any system that is deprived of its volatility, the system becomes very fragile. just like the economy became fragile by micromanaging. >> let me use that to segue into the text. this book -- define for me "antifragile." >> what is the opposite of fragile? they tend to say robust, solid. the opposite of fragile is something that gains from disorder. i was an options trader for a long time, half of my life. i had a name for things that were harmed by volatility. i realized that you can map fragility as something that gains from volatility. things that gain from volatility, we have to have a name different from resilience. i call them "antifragile." people make mistakes shooting for robustness and stability, things that need -- you go to the gym. people work out. they stress their body and their body gets s
and screaming that can't be part of it, yet all of them privately will tell you what's driving the deficit more than any single thing of medicare and medicaid and longer-term social security, so the mere fact that we are discussing those types of things fit. in terms of the votes, look, if it's going to be a deal there has to be votes from both sides. the reality is -- and these guys, the president and the speaker dealt with one another before. they've never been able to come to a deal. they came to a huge deal during the lame-duck session in 2010 on extending the bush tax cuts. they came to another deal without shutting down the government in april of 2011 cutting discretionary spending by billions of dollars and they came to another one on the debt ceiling as well which was a 2.2 trillion dollar long-term reduction in exchange for an increase in the debt ceiling. so, you know, the need to take it to another level. this is a more complex problem, and it's the beginning of a series of negotiations between the two. they are going to be together for the next four years. the president won the elec
it in building a good, solid farm bill which actually found $23 billion in savings towards the deficit. we did it in passing a strong highway bill that will strengthen our nation's infrastructure. and we did it most recently this week in working through a large and complex defense authorization bill that will keep our nation safer and more secure in these perilous times. it will take more of this kind of cooperation and consensus building to address the very real and substantial challenges facing our nation today. that is why i'm deeply concerned about a proposal floated recently by some members of the majority regarding the rules of the senate. they propose to change the nearly 100-year-old senate rule that requires a two-thirds majority to change the operating rules of the senate. our colleagues in the majority are proposing to use a simple majority vote to make the change. that's the issue here. the issue is the manner in which they plan to do it. once the precedent of changing a rule with a simple majority vote is established, 51 senators could change the rules to suit their own convenienc
at all of these programs, are they even going to reduce the deficit? if they have the combined affect of slowing down the economy, the deficit reduction doesn't take place. they have to be more pro active and they have to get aggressive. but none of these guys understand economics. you are talking about a bunch of lawyers. you are talking about a bunch of people that study political science. you don't have anybody in congress that understands economic and they are following poor economic history and applying the same medicine. >> i am only one man. i can't save the world. this super hero is looking at me. again drawing exactly to scale. this just in, an urgent bull law -- bulletin coming in. i am getting results as i speak. you don't think i could perform heroic feats? right this second news from the united states senate that they are moving right now. right now. let me quote -- okay it is not on the stuff i just talked about. apparently harry reid is trying to move heaven and earth for a waiver to allow food in the congressional auditorium. let may get this straight. let me get this
% of the deficit. we have spend ourselves into a hole and we're not going to raise taxes, borrow money and get out of it. will i accept a tax increase as part of a deal to actually solve our problems? yes. but the president is negotiating with the wrong people. he needs to be negotiating with our bond holders in china. because if we don't put a creditable plan on this, on the discussion, ultimately, we all lose. >> you got your colleague debbie stabenow, on the your screen as well, can you say quickly what it is going to take? >> well, we got to quit playing the game, george, you can't continue to lie to the american people, there is no way to fix medicare under the guidelines of aarp that our tax dollars are now advertising to say not fix it. the way we can fix it is to control the cost. the way to control the cost is to have more individual participation. there's a lot of ways to do that. you can't play the game and hide. medicare and social security and medicaid if those aren't fixed if we're not honest about how to fix them and the fact, that, yes, everybody in this country will have to partic
to reduce the deficit, 63% said no. 86% of the ads run for obama were personal attacks on romney. he won a stunning mandate to not be romney. he did not run on the basis he was going to do massive new spending and the kind of tax increases, $1.6 trillion that he's now talking about. and at the same time that obama was elected president, the republican house, which had twice voted for a real budget -- remember, the president's budget he claims he has a mandate for was put up before the house and the democrats all voted against it. in the senate, the democrats didn't want to have anything to do with it. it's a little hard to argue, he had a mandate for something the rest of his party ran away from. >> well -- >> did not run ads on those issues. >> and, of course, it was a bit more complicated than that. but to your point about the exit polls, it's true, most people said that they didn't want tax increases to solve the deficit. what they said -- the majority, was they wanted both balanced. they wanted cuts and tax increases. which is what both john boehner and the president -- in very strid
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 574 (some duplicates have been removed)